Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 September 21

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

September 21

Pi

Good morning sir, my online data is turned off by Bikash Bank Money on 92.97.34.49 (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia; we cannot assist in banking issues. Talk directly to your bank. win8x (talking | spying) 01:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I can't login to my account

I typed the correct username and password, but when I pressed “Log in”, a message popped up saying: “There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking. Please resubmit the form. You may receive this message if you are blocking cookies.”. What happened to my account?

My account is JasonHo1222. 138.19.34.189 (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you blocking cookies or scripts on your browser (or maybe an overzealous antivirus)? Does it work if you use another browser? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The time allocated for running scripts has expired error after editing

2024 PDC Pro Tour It keeps throwing this error on the Darts Pro Tour 2024 site, so it's completely useless. Maybe you can find a solution. They might need to increase their max_execution_time in their php settings. Szpity88 (talk) 03:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Might need to cut down on the templates being used on that page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Not an option. Wouldn't it be more logical to modify the previously mentioned setting so that this does not happen? Because that's pretty amateurish. Szpity88 (talk) 05:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

*shrugs*

There are limitations in the software MediaWiki used; we faced similar issues when we exceeded the PEIS limit for the larger COVID-19 pages and the solution was to split them off into their own articles. Perhaps the software tinkerers will eventually be able to allow more templates to be used, but in the meantime, fewer templates on the page is the only solution. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

This might be related to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Issue with Template:Inflation. The article 2024 PDC Pro Tour makes many calls to {{PDCFlag}}, which calls Module:DartsRankings, which in turn makes many calls to the LUA function gsub. This is one of the functions that seem to have got slower recently. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

My general impression of problems with script timeouts and PEIS errors is that about 80% of them are caused by splattering hundreds of stupid flags everywhere. Wish people could just let go of the idea that the flag of a country of a person's citizenship or the flag of a country containing a specific geographic locale is in every instance relevant information. Folly Mox (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

interlinking to a bit deep part of an article

Can you interlink a specific word in an article to another article? VihirLak007 (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, VihirLak007. -- Hoary (talk) 07:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

whats the code for it? VihirLak007 (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

use the anchor template: {{anchor|string to use as label}} ... you can do an "insource:" search on "anchor" to easily find some examples. Fabrickator (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

It worked and exactly what i was looking for. Thank you VihirLak007 (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

MfD nominations?

I recently requested an article to be put up for MfD on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion, as I am an unregistered user. However, I also saw that IP users should tag the article for deletion along with submitting a request on the talk page. However, if a person sees the deletion tag on top of the page, and the link to the deletion discussion doesn't exist, there's a very high chance that they won't realize I made a request on the talk page and will probably revert the edit and warn me. Should I still tag the article? 74.108.22.119 (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

No. The MfD nomination that you want to make is absolutely hopeless. I reject your request to convert it into a proper MfD nomination. I have given you the needed explanation in response to your comment in which you "requested an article to be put up for MfD"; see Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#MFD request: Wikipedia:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia? —Alalch E. 13:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Factually incorrect information on Rangers Football

can you please update the page for Rangers Football Club. The Rangers football club has only existed since 2012. 80.43.94.129 (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

It was formed in 1872. Please read History of Rangers F.C.. Perhaps you are thinking of some other club? Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Technically the IP is correct: The original Rangers Football Club Plc was declared insolvent in 2012, and its assets sold to a company Sevco Scotland Ltd, subsequently renamed The Rangers Football Club Ltd. This financially new entity was refused re-admission to the Scottish Premier League, had to apply for membership of the Scottish Football League, and was admitted into Divison 3, thereafter working its way back up to the Premier League by the usual promotion ladder.

[The above summarises information in the article linked above.]

However, in sporting terms the current club is generally regarded as a continuation of the original Rangers, just as are several other clubs in Europe (and doubtless elswhere) that have had to be variously financially reconstituted.

[Disclaimer: a Sassenach here, so nae dug in this fight :-).]

{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.171.3 (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Factually Incorrect Information Regarding Magazine Ownership

An unknown user has been inserting incorrect information into the page for Soldier of Fortune Magazine, regarding magazine ownership. The documentation on the magazine website and in the LLC filings correctly show the ownership. This is a malicious attempt by an unknown user to discredit the magazine and its owner, and to raise the specter of unseen governance. How can these malicious efforts be blocked? RedlineBluepencil (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link Soldier of Fortune (magazine) Knitsey (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:VNT. Information published in reliable sources that is notable and confirmed can be added to the article. Additionally, your tone implies you may have a conflict of interest with this topic, seeing as 44 of your 52 edits have been on this article. Information must be cited to reliable (and preferably non-primary) sources, so if you find one with the information to challenge their claims, feel free to re-add it. If the user's claims are not backed up by any source in the article, and you have reason to suspect their factuality, you can challenge and remove them yourself. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

RedlineBluepencil appears to be right. The sources currently numbered 2 and 3 say that Susan Katz Keating bought the magazine, and make no mention of her partner being involved in the transaction as claimed by the IP editor. Maproom (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

To editor RedlineBluepencil: If you have some personal connection with the magazine and/or the magazine's owner, please read the page pointed to by this link: Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects. If you have more questions please feel free to ask them here. Also see this page for a general overview and references to more information about Wikipedia. --Slowking Man (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

RedlineBluepencil, the lead section of the current version of the article devotes undue weight to a recent trivial dispute about ownership. The lead section should summarize the entire 49 year history of the publication, not a recent editing dispute. Cullen328 (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

No Stashed Content

I am attempting to edit a draft but can not submit due to the following: No stashed content found for 0/d7ee9548-5ee6-11ef-af15-477c1614b1fc. Suggestions are welcomed. MsSalsaFish (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@MsSalsaFish This is probably the error that occurs when one leaves the editing window open too long. I often get it when writing an article over multiple days. There are two things you can do: if you are able to, you can copy the entire wikitext of your edited revision; next, open the draft in a separate tab and click "edit source", select all the wikitext there, and paste in your version it its place. Then you should be able to click "Publish Changes", and submit the draft for review if you wish. Alternatively, you can do basically the same thing with the visual editor. Cremastra (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

This comes up often enough that we might want to think about adding a page about it in helpspace, or a paragraph somewhere that can be transcluded onto multiple new user guides. Folly Mox (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! MsSalsaFish (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

To editor MsSalsaFish: I have to ask, do you have a personal connection to either the Promise Neighborhoods organization, or Hasshan Batts, the only two subjects about which you have made any content-related edits? Or are you being compensated by either? If so you need to read the page pointed to by this link: Wikipedia:Plain and simple COI guide. If you are being compensated for activity on Wikipedia you must disclose so. This FAQ page may also be useful reading.

I note both of the drafts you have worked on have been declined at WP:AFC, one multiple times. I'm afraid my prediction is that this is not likely to change in the near future, and the least time-wasting thing to do would be, if desired, to take the contents of the drafts and copy it to a personal or organizational webhost outside Wikipedia. You are free, of course, to do whatever you decide to, but don't be too surprised if my prediction holds. If you have other questions, you are welcome to ask them here; this page will also help. Thank you and hope you are doing well. --Slowking Man (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

No, I am new to Wikipedia and do not want to attempt additional articles until I am successful with this first article. I am aware that it was declined but I don't know how new people begin to contribute articles on Wikipedia without making some initial errors and having some grace to make changes. Writing in a neutral tone, no matter how distant from any topic, does require some practice and skill. I enjoy learning new things and Wikipedia is my new challenge. The first reviewer was quite discouraging which is why I postponed a return to making edits until I spent more time studying Wiki rules. Thank you for your input and response. MsSalsaFish (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Raid of Carpetania

I came across the article Raid of Carpetania, and determined after a little while that Wikipedia already had plenty of information on the same topic, at Lusitanian War § Third Lusitanian Raid and the Feats of Viriathus (148 BC – 140 BC). I decided to boldly WP:BLAR the new article (which, it should be noted, is considerably shorter and less detailed than the section at Lusitanian War, though they both draw on only one source, which is Appian's Roman History, Book VI), and point the redirect to the aforementioned section. There is no point in having the topic duplicated, and the raid does not appear to be independently notable (it has little coverage in secondary sources, although the right search terms are hard to find since there seems to be no agreed upon name for the events, so I could very well be wrong). Today the page creator, Jaozinhoanaozinho reverted by BLAR with no edit summary. So I have two questions: 1) was my BLAR appropriate, and 2) how should I proceed? Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

You’re free to read the book or the Lusitanian War wiki and add additional information, I see no problem on leaving the page up.

I didn’t really need a summary either, my intention was quite obvious. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

To editor Jaozinhoanaozinho: Reverting another editor's edit should generally never be done without giving an explanation in the edit summary. It's considered rude and unhelpful. Remember, there is another real human on the "other side" of the screen, who had a reason for doing what they did, even if you may disagree with them about it. (This is the case regardless of who created a page. A Wikipedia article is not "owned" by anyone.) The only real exception is obvious vandalism, which this was not. Even then it's helpful to note that's what you're doing even with something brief such as "rvv". --Slowking Man (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Your argument for WP:BLAR is reasonable, but as the article was only created this month it is not surprising that the author thinks their article should not be redirected and that they are watching it. What to do next is up to you. You could leave it or follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and have a discussion on the article talk page. You could also post a link to the discussion at the wikiprojects mentioned on the talk page. If you still disagree you could take the article to WP:AFD and ask for it to be redirected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TSventon (talk • contribs)

I advise all parties involved here to read thoughtfully Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, for useful advice. Also be aware of things such as the three-revert rule. In most cases, it never hurts to discuss things first: There is no deadline. --Slowking Man (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, someone else started an AfD, so I guess it is out of my hands now. Cremastra (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)